,
19 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
I'm not the first to notice this.
The leftists didn't like Humphrey, so we got Nixon.
They didn't like Carter, so we got Reagan.
They didn't like Gore. We got GWB.
They didn't like Hillary, and they gave us Trump.
They need to grow the fuck up.
.
The leftists didn't like Humphrey, so we got Nixon.
They didn't like Carter, so we got Reagan.
They didn't like Gore. We got GWB.
They didn't like Hillary, and they gave us Trump.
They need to grow the fuck up.
.
The most common negative reaction I've gotten from this is, "That's not true, and if we don't get Our Candidate, we'll do it again!"
Some of the fauxgressive conspiracy theories are fun, though.
This tweet nails it.
Fauxgressives truly believe anything other than their fake purity is evil (though they usually call it "centrist", "neoliberal", or "corporate dem", and they'd rather have the greater evil of outright fascism.
Fauxgressives truly believe anything other than their fake purity is evil (though they usually call it "centrist", "neoliberal", or "corporate dem", and they'd rather have the greater evil of outright fascism.
This is a nice deflection, confusing ideology with the effects of voting (or not).
This attitude, that Democratic nominees are "evil" (though perhaps not quite as evil as outright fascism) permeates the looney "far left."
Running a far-left candidate is something we've tried with George McGovern, in 1972, and he lost 49 states.
I remember it well because I fervently supported him at the time. I learned the lesson though.
I remember it well because I fervently supported him at the time. I learned the lesson though.
I've seen this thought many times since 2016, that since Democratic voters generally are more mature than leftist tantrum-ers, a socialist candidate candidate has a better chance. Of course, a socialist would lose worse than McGovern did, so there's that.
Just so my comments are all negative--liz here has the right of it. There isn't a "both sides" argument to be made.
Fascists don't get a side. They're fucking fascists. Anyone willing to see a fascist elected, for any reason, supports fascism. End of.
Fascists don't get a side. They're fucking fascists. Anyone willing to see a fascist elected, for any reason, supports fascism. End of.
Several have pointed out that Gore and Hillary both won the popular voter. That certainly makes an argument that "establishment" candidates are pretty damn popular, but of course Electors, not the popular vote, select the President.
What matters there is that Nader took enough votes from Gore in states he needed to win to sway the election to Bush.
Likewise, Stein took enough votes in MI, WI, and PA to give those states' electors to Trump.
Faux-leftists caused that.
Likewise, Stein took enough votes in MI, WI, and PA to give those states' electors to Trump.
Faux-leftists caused that.
Yes, every election is complicated, and there are many factors in any win (or loss). It's often the case that had any one of several factors been different, each individually could have changed the outcome. My point is that extremists are frequently one such factor.
Here is someone who understands the stakes. Thank you.
A quest for ideological purity or policy purity can only be pursued by those so comfortable in their privilege they think a permanent fascist state won't inconvenience them.
Taking the second point of this tweet (the first point as addressed above), it's a tragedy that America is a two-party system. But it is, and we must play the cards we're dealt. Either a D or an R will be elected. A vote for anything else helps fascists.
This is not unreasonable for people who insist on making protest votes (i.e., they think their vote won't really count). But many Stein voters in MI, WI, and PA probably felt exactly this way.
One's vote *always* counts. Don't waste it.
One's vote *always* counts. Don't waste it.
This is a good question. A 3rd party will be taken seriously when it has built a structure from the ground up, has elected local and state legislators (not just candidates) in every state, and controls a majority in several state houses and some Governors.
This person has the right of it. Getting most of a meal is better than getting a knife to the gut.
It surprises me that so many so-called "progressives" condemn the idea of merely making progress.
It surprises me that so many so-called "progressives" condemn the idea of merely making progress.
I don't think anyone is adding new thoughts, so I'll leave it there. I want to thank "progressive" extremists for making the tweet at the head of this thread so popular. It's gotten far more attention than it would have otherwise. I appreciate your efforts.
